Windham v. Marin et al

Filing 94

ORDER Disregarding Plaintiff's Objections to Court's Orders 51 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/13/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. 1:14-cv-01636 DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO COURT’S ORDERS

v.
(ECF No. 51)
M. MARIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

20

claims of excessive force against defendants M. Marin, D. Uribe, W. Rasley, J. Contreras, A.

21

Capano, R. Rubio, and Doe #1, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against

22

defendants C. Navarro, V. Morales, M. Marin, and S. Shiver. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of an

23

alleged unprovoked assault on September 11, 2014 at Corcoran State Prison.

24

Currently pending before the court are Plaintiff’s “objections” to (1) the undersigned’s

25

August 17, 2015 order granting a stay of non-exhaustion discovery and granting Defendants an

26

extension of time to respond to pending discovery requests, and (2) the then assigned-district

27

judge’s September 1, 2015 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order

28
1

1

granting a stay of non-exhaustion discovery and granting Defendants an extension of time to

2

respond to pending discovery requests. (ECF No. 51.)

3

I.

Background

4

On August 17, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ request to stay all non-exhaustion

5

related discovery pending the disposition of their motion for summary judgment under Federal

6

Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 43.) The

7

Court also granted Defendants an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s pending discovery

8

requests, until after this Court decides the aforementioned motion for summary judgment. (Id. at

9

3.)

10

On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s August 17, 2015 order and a

11

concurrent opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery and extension of time to

12

respond to pending discovery. (ECF Nos. 45, 46.) In his objections, Plaintiff sought reversal of

13

the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 45, p. 4.)

14

On September 1, 2015, the then-assigned District Court Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion

15

for reconsideration, finding that the order granting a stay of non-exhaustion discovery and an

16

extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests was not clearly erroneous or

17

contrary to law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 48.)

18

On September 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants’ responses to his

19

pending discovery requests. (ECF No. 50.) By separate order, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s

20

motion to compel in light of the stay of non-exhaustion discovery and Defendants’ extension of

21

time to respond to the pending discovery requests.

22
23

On September 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the undersigned’s August 17, 2015
order, and the District Court Judge’s September 1, 2015 order. (ECF No. 51.)

24

II.

Discussion

25

Plaintiff’s objections do not ask for any specific form of relief. Rather, Plaintiff reports

26

that he has filed these objections “in order to preserve the issues for appeal to the Ninth Judicial

27

Circuit.” (ECF No. 51, p. 1.) Although Plaintiff states that the Court’s decisions are an abuse of

28

discretion and clearly and plainly erroneous, the bulk of Plaintiff’s objections relate to his various
2

1

contentions that the Court, the California Attorney General’s Office (and its deputy attorney

2

generals) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) are working

3

together to deny prisoners justice and their day in court, that the Court is not impartial, and that

4

CDCR and its staff are obstructing his attempts to prosecute this case, and that the CDCR appeals

5

process is rigged. (Id. at pp. 2-6.) In short, Plaintiff’s objections appear to be an assertion of his

6

general displeasure with the Court, its rulings and the litigation process. Since Plaintiff is not

7

asking for any particular form of relief by way of these objections, and is instead attempting to

8

preserve his issues for appeal, the Court finds it unnecessary to specifically address Plaintiff’s

9

objections at this time.

10

III.

11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections, filed on September 10, 2015, are HEREBY

12

Conclusion

DISREGARDED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 13, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3